Not sure, on Linux I don’t really think about these things. Never had a computer become “bricked”.

Tbh it’s great for the Linux community because we can pick them up secondhand cheap and continue using them.

Brick more laptops Windows. 🐸

That makes sense. I’ll amend my comment.

Couldn’t you also git checkout -b hash for the same result, then fork with the new branch?

Or are the results different in some way?

Lots of folks spend their time intentionally misunderstanding things so they can make jokes about the misunderstanding.

I don’t get it, but you see it everywhere.

I think it’s comforting for humans to believe things are a certain way, versus seeing them how they are.

Reading your comment literally, that you want a step by step description.

Assuming you are starting a brand new repo.

Clone.
Identify commit from which to fork.
Checkout commit by hash.
Delete .git. get reset --hard some-hash
git init
git add, excluding whatever for whatever reason.
git commit -m “Init fork.”

That’s what makes sense to me thinking through it. No idea if it works that way, never tried it. But that is what I would try first.

Lemme know if I fucked up anything.

Now my own questions, the other comments seem to be maintaining a reference to the original repo, is that what is going on?

Are the multiple people in the room with us now?

Okay, I understand better now, thanks.

That’s fair, I receive the same critique sometimes, probably why I feel drawn to your style of comms. I adapted, because what effect do my opinions have if no one is listening, and what is an opinion but an idea to shape the world around me. My own presentation was undermining my goals. That may not be the case for you.

Moving onto your statement here:
I believe I understand what you mean by, "there is no ‘the ai’ that can make decisions without human intent behind it’ ", but I am still confused by the idea you are attempting to convey. You really aren’t providing much info.

Given the components for an experiment:

1. A machine running an LLM.
2. Humans who operate the machine.
3. Intent, defined by the humans.
4. Outcomes, observed by a perfect detector.

If there is no decision being made by a machine, then given knowledge of 1, 2, and 3, then 4 will be absolutely predictable in every scenario, yes?

Is that the claim you are making?
Did I miss anything?
And finally, why is this important? You’re kinda making me connect all the dots for you, some help would be appreciated, I’d like to understand your idea.
Take all the time and space you need, I’d like to read it.

You are right. Everything stated, (while missing the point), was correct.

Arizona is a state. Factually correct. Does it belong here? It must. It’s factually correct.

Here is a point for you:

.

Be sure to miss it 😉

You’re still focused on the tree, consider the forest someday.

Good luck in life my friend.

The answer you are digging for, which will likely not satisfy you, is, “It’s just fun my dude. Who wants to argue about every little thing?” Pumpkin go boom. Smile and move on. Enjoy life, not everything is a fight.

You seem focused on semantics. There is an alternative approach where you read a comment, consider their intent, and respond in kind. Semantics can be comforting to some due to their rigidity and law-like structure, but I doubt they’re helping you do anything but promote unnecessary conflict.

A conversation is occuring, and you respond, “Define ‘it’.” You’re just being unlikeable.

Anyway, if you’re a real person, consider this. If not, I understand you are following your directives and will remain needlessly argumentative. Good luck.

You’re right, 1.5MiB isn’t a lot. No one is saying it is. The larger point that you are missing is:

bloat_MiB = 0
for (( discussion=1;discussion<101;discussion++ ));do
echo “i noticed the dependencies grew by 1.5MiB, should we address that?”
echo “1.5MiB isn’t a lot, let’s not think about it.”
bloat += 1.5
done
echo “where did this bloat come from?”

You’re focused on 1.5MiB and missing the larger discussion.

My question is, are you engaging with the discussion or are you attempting to be right? Yes. One instance of 1.5MiB isn’t bloat, but it is a symptom of bloat.

Users here are discussing a mindset of ignoring optimization, and many responses are missing the forest (bloat root cause) to focus on the trees (the 1.5MiB example used for demonstration purposes only). Ironically embodying the very mindset which contributes to the bloat root cause. It’s amusing, in a way.

This opinion is wrong and person should feel bad.

Did some more work to fix up his previous, unfinished work, and did git commit --amend (good, we don’t like dozens of commit messages like “oops I forgot this bit”, and squashing at the end is more complicated).

Can’t tell if joke. Doesn’t seem to be. New branch and push amend, drop old branch, solved. The complaints seem to be, “I don’t want to understand git’s rigid workflow, instead I want it to intuit what I want. Just overwrite my shit without asking! It’s more convenient that way!”

Who the hell wants presumption in their source control? I want that behavior as rigid as law.

Remote is truth. Remote is immutable.

Also, are they legitimately complaining that they don’t want small commits? Small commits are best practice because they create granular and traceable history.

This person needs to:

1. Stop expecting a tool to adapt to every user’s presumptive flow, and instead adapt to the tool.
2. Define a commit workflow that resolves granular commits into sensical messages.
3. Don’t use force args on remote unless you’re the admin and know the potential consequences, ya muppet.

All this effort to avoid learning and conforming to the standard workflow. Seriously one of the worst opinions I’ve ever seen. Congrats.

I think the source of this person’s struggle is their own misguided opinions. If they paused and thought, “Why does git do X that way…?”, it would become clear. But who has time for that. Thrash and shout.

TLDR: If git solution is so bad, solve it better.

Python, “You can’t see _me.”

When killing children, it’s important to first identify parent child relationships, assuring total genealogical erasure.

You can’t set permissions and ownership because NTFS doesn’t support Linux style permissions and ownership.

Why not copy the data elsewhere, format drive to ext4 or btrfs, then copy the data back? Don’t use NTFS on Linux unless you enjoy having less control, unless you’re sharing the drive with Windows then you have no choice I suppose.

TLDR: NTFS bad (not really, but sort of).

If you are staying on NTFS, you can stop reading here.

Anyway if you decide to migrate off NTFS, and assuming your username is zapBrannigan:

(recursively sets user ownership to zapBrannigan, sets group ownership to root, setting the group to root is a nice default because it’s effectively “no group” and limits access to non-privileged, non-you users)
sudo chown -R zapBrannigan:root /path/to/drive

(recursively sets user, group, other permissions, where 664 corresponds to “allow rw-rw-r–”, in this representation, the mode bits 664 are a binary mask, 6=110, 4=100, so you’re setting 110110100 which sets the allow described above)
sudo chmod -R 664 /path/to/drive

The first command sets ownership to you, the user. The second command allows the user to read and write every file, and other users to read every file, set to 660 to forbid other users.

After that I suspect your fstab issue will become solvable.

If anything scares you, audit the data and backup the critical segments before working with the drive. I am assuming you don’t have free space to backup the entire drive, if you do, then just do that.

The solution to school shootings is not to focus on dodgeball.

This is a comment about phone privacy.

deleted by creator

Think of it as a game, the players are corpo, and gov.

Corpo hacks planet, gov says, “Hm, that’s pretty bad corpo, we could hold you accountable… but… that’s pretty neat, maybe share a lil with us how you achieved this terrible incident (that we totally don’t want to leverage against international peers) and we can forget this happened…”

A game of incentives.

If the gov comes down too hard, they could slow the development, the same development that they short-sightedly want to exploit in parallel with the accused.

A donut is just a hole with a circle drawn around it.

Exactly, that’s why I choose it on all of my mobile systems. It also survives power outages which is important in storm-prone geographies.